Re: Storing data and code in a Db with LISP-like interface
Date: 28 Apr 2006 04:05:23 -0700
Message-ID: <1146222323.868141.105620_at_e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
Frank Hamersley wrote:
> JOG wrote:
> > Frank Hamersley wrote:
> >> Bob Badour wrote:
> >>> Marshall Spight wrote:
> >>>> Neo wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> The tomato is *not* a vegetable!
> >>>>>>> :) why isn't it?
> >>>>>> It has seeds. The seeds make it a fruit. Actually I think it also
> >>>>>> qualifies as a berry, which is especially weird.
> >>>>> So could one classify the following as fruits since they all have
> >>>>> seeds: zuchinni, yellow squash, butternut squash, pumpkins, chilis,
> >>>>> peppers, bell peppers, egg plant, bitter melon, okra, chayote, green
> >>>>> beans ... and how do I convince the average person, especially for
> >>>>> bittermelon. Who is right, the average person or you :)
> >>>>
> >>>> Neither; I advocate asking an expert for questions like these.
> >>>> The botanist is right.
> >>> In the end, taxonomy is rather arbitrary. Hierarchy just doesn't work
> >>> for things as complex as biological systems.
> >> Why do we use them in that case?
> >>
> >> Cheers, Frank. [B.Sc (UWA) Zool]
> >
> > Often because they work well on paper, and we are still traditionally
> > tied to these constraints.
>
> Bull - paper has nothing to do with it and its not tradition either.
No, only bull, if you've missed my point. While you are still talking about phyogenetic trees, I was referring to the line about hierarchy being used in complex systems in general. [Of course phylogenetic tree's use hiearchy - they are based on a single common ancestor and translate to tree's naturally (ignoring horizontal gene transfer) ]. As such, my point was that there many things that are not hierarchies, such as family trees for example, which are still conventionally forced into tree structures. And part of the reason for this _is_ because the storage/presentation mechanism was traditionally subject to the constraints of paper.
>
> It is in fact the state of the art after hundreds of years of (western)
> scientific endeavour. That does not presume it is perfect and certainly
> does preclude it from advancing in the future but these traits do not
> enable you to consign it to the rubbish bin.
>> > Phillip have common ancestors, although this is (conveniently)
> > Family trees for instance. Hardly hierarchical but construed as such
> > due to the conventions of paper. For instance the Queen and Prince
> > unobtainable information from the official royal 'hierarchy'.
>
> This is not a phylogenic structure...it is/was a political statement first.
correct. But then, I was not referring to phylogenic structures.
> Cheers, Frank.
all best, Jim. Received on Fri Apr 28 2006 - 13:05:23 CEST